Today's shopping : 105/1.8 and 50/1.8 AI

[Airy]

I found a mint copy of the 105/1.8 : no scratch, no dust inside. This lens has been debated elsewhere; so just a few remarks:
- very bright image through the EVF, and easy to focus (although the ring is a bit stiff)
- Good sharpness wide open, not so good near MFD, but loads of LoCA at all distances
- Sharpness increases massively at f/2.8, where it looks comparable to the 105/2.5 at f/4
Overall, it is an impressive lens. However that sample cost 749€, also because it is in perfect shape. I do not mind paying for the optics, but if I have to pay for the cosmetics in addition, the price might result in being too high. Here, I said pass. If someone would like to buy it, I'll send him or her the address (in Paris).

The purpose of the shopping spree was however to pick a 50/1.8 AI. There were two for sale, all very clean and nice. One sample had a slightly irregular focussing stiffness near MFD; its f/2 stop position notch was too easily skipped, and it seemed to have slightly (very slightly) more LoCA. So I picked the other, slightly older sibling (ser. no. 202... instead of 212...).
Interesting behaviour:  at f/1.8, I still do not like them - some blueish haze, as with my later pancake AIS version. By contrast, the Voigtländer 58/1.4, while not much sharper, behaves way better even at f/1.4. But at f/2.0, the haze of the 50/1.8 AI is more or less gone (more distinclty than with the late AIS I have, ser. No. 4xxxxx) and the vignetting is much more discreet; sharpness remains the same, i.e. it is reasonably good. So that lens was a deal. The pancake AIS will later get back to the shop where I bought it, which happens to be the same (le Moyen Format, Boulevard Beaumarchais).
The 50/1.8 AI seems sharper than the 50/2 at 2.0-2.8 settings, but at f/4, the situation seems to reverse, with the 50/2 taking the lead.
Hmmm... more A/B comparisons in perspective.

Provisional conclusion: 50/1.8 AI is best used at f/2 - f/2.8. The 50/2 deserves its reputation for sharpness, if stopped down. And yes, that 105/1.8 is one sexy lens.

[Frank Fremerey]

The 1.8/105 is huge and heavy ... that is possibly the only downside of this gem

[Jacques Pochoy]

I have'nt yet seen a real difference between the the 50/1.8 AI and the 50/2 AI, other then I use the latest more. That shop (le moyen format) had some ex-students of my school of architecture working as sales clerks some years ago, as the Leica store a bit higher on the same boulevard... 
The Nikon NPS service a bit higher still, can be very efficient and speedy !
The true name of the Boulevard Beaumarchais is in fact the Boulevard of Photography (most of the most important shops are there)!

[richardHaw]

sorry, which 50 1/8 is it?

[Akira]

I liked the Nikkor P C 50/2.0 on my F2 eyelevel but would have liked it even more with the 7-blade aperture.  Both Ai and Ais 50/1.8 have the 7-blade ones.

In the DSLR era, I definitely prefer Ai 50/1.8 over Ais because of the longer focus throw of Ai.

[Tristin]

On the 105, loads of LoCa and degrading performance closer to the MFD is not at all what I experienced with 2 copies.  I'd say you have a poor copy. 

[Akira]

I'm not sure, but I would suspect that the seemingly impeccable sample of 105/1.8 you saw was poorly serviced.

Years ago, I saw a mint 20/3.5 (the first, 72mm filter version).  I looked into the finder and was surprised by the amount of barrel distortion which was somewhere between that of rectilinear wideangle and fisheye.  That was unbelievable for a well reputed super-wideangle.

Later I obtained a factory Ai converted mint sample that showed almost unnoticeable distortion.  The differentce was way more than the sample variation.

Much later I heard that the first sample I saw could have been poorly re-assembled after the cleaning.  The assembling of the lenses in the earlier days required sophisticated workmanship.

[Airy]

Possibly. I experienced that with a Noct sold for 1350€, the performance of which was incredibly bad. I still have the test shots. Not knowing if it could be fixed and for what price, I did not buy it....

[Tristin]

The 105/1.8's consistency from MFD to Infinity is one of the standout features I observed in the two I have used.  Likely why I have seen it being used for reproduction and measuring.

[Airy]

On the 105, loads of LoCa and degrading performance closer to the MFD is not at all what I experienced with 2 copies.  I'd say you have a poor copy.

Just bought a nice one for 300€ only (seller in a hurry, focussing and aperture rings a bit stiff, optics quite OK). I maintain that LoCA and short range performance are not that great - same experience as with the other one, sold for 750€ in mint condition. Otherwise the lens seems excellent. Vignetting is very low, too.

[longzoom]

Just bought a nice one for 300€ only (seller in a hurry, focussing and aperture tings a bit stiff, optics quite OK). I maintain that LoCA and short range performance are not that great - same experience as with the other one, sold for 750€ in mint condition. Otherwise the lens seems excellent. Vignetting is very low, too.

.   Watch it carefully - aperture unit of 105/1.8 is very sensitive, blades are on weak side, due to weak directing pins. If there is even trace of oil on the blades, DO NOT use it, clean it first, unit must be immaculate clean. Good luck!   LZ

[Airy]

Thanks for the warning. I have checked the blades the usual way, i.e. looking at both sides; no apparent issues. The other check I routinely perform is the sticky blades test : same shot at all apertures. If the shots become lighter at narrow apertures (putting aside the effects of vignetting), this means that the diaph blades do not manage to close in time before the shutter does its job. Again, no issue. In the past, only a Noct failed the test in my hands (probably a weak spring, but it also had other issues and the shop lost my confidence).

I was not aware of the problem with the 105/1.8, so I had another check minutes ago, confirming the "pass". Thanks again for the warning (3 months guarantee is all I got).

[Airy]

A few impression from the 105/1.8:

While the 1.8 aperture comes with low contrast and purple fringing, it is usable - maybe more so at night. See the second picture, shot wide open for testing purpose (using f/1.8 with a "deep" subject is not, in general, a good idea).

The first however was shot at f/5.6 : nice sunstars.

[Airy]

Requiem for a leaf. f/1.8. Funny bokeh. Not overly sharp at MFD (opinion also emitted by other reviewers)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I think in my old review there was a sentence about 'veiling flare' at the very widest aperture(s).

The ability of the 105/1.8 to produce nice "star bursts" has been commented on many times. This remains one of the particular attractions of this lens model.